We just need people in the army. Right now, no one wants to be in the army because negative public opinion of the wars we are in among many other reasons. Recruitment is the lowest its been in 30 years.
We don't need skill and strength... we need physical bodies. Arguing semantics about man and woman are fine from a theoretical standpoint, but they really hold no value.
Like Chris Rock said, "if they want to fight let them fight... cause I ain't going to fight. Call me a faggot, I'll be the faggot with two legs."
On the more idiosyncratic argument:
You ought to judge people not by a huge generalization, but how they perform individually. On average women are shorter, less strong, and slower than men. That doesn't say anything about the women who want to join the military. As long as they can perform more power to them. Obviously if they can't perform don't let them be in the military.
In terms of separate raxes and so forth, the military is a shitload of money ... as long as there are enough women they should get their own raxes.
Rape... that's something that could happen every day and signing up for the military they should be aware of the risks.
So, I believe yes that women should be sign up for the military.
Yes. Better them than me. Same thing goes for gays.
I don't believe in war and I don't believe in killing innocent people, so if there ever is a mandatory draft, Im letting anyone who wants to take my place the go ahead.
On the men protecting women aspect, I think a lot of people don't understand the mindset the army creates. Soldiers don't fight for their ideals, they don't fight for their country, they fight for their mates. The purpose of a lot of the training is, and has always been, to bond the unit into a family. You eat together, sleep together, party together and go through the same shit together. Your good days are their good days, your successes are theirs, your failures are shared, you overcome challenges together. The purpose of all this is so when they fly the group out and put them together in a warzone they'll kill to protect their friends, they'll fight to protect their friends and when it matters they just won't stop. The urge to protect your comrades is pretty much maxed out, regardless of gender. I've always thought it's kind of ironic when two nations who both use this form of training fight. You get two groups of friends and tell each of them that the other wants to shoot their best mate.
On November 14 2009 04:38 TwoToneTerran wrote: Men have low hanging, superfluous genitalia that is an obvious weakpoint on the battlefield, and thus should not be used for battle.
ps: women, on average, have a smaller profile and are thus more suited for ranged combat that modern firearms forces.
pps: the female brain is better at multitasking which is the prime mental asset for squad leaders in any infantry unit.
ppps: Sexism is garbage.
You're points aren't valid because on average women still can't perform the basic physical tasks (compared to the way the average man can) to get to the point where a smaller profile would be worth accounting for.
Oh, and noticing the genetic differences between the two sexes isn't sexism.
On November 14 2009 04:11 outqast wrote: I'm not sure if people made this argument before.
We just need people in the army. Right now, no one wants to be in the army because negative public opinion of the wars we are in among many other reasons. Recruitment is the lowest its been in 30 years.
We don't need skill and strength... we need physical bodies. Arguing semantics about man and woman are fine from a theoretical standpoint, but they really hold no value.
Like Chris Rock said, "if they want to fight let them fight... cause I ain't going to fight. Call me a faggot, I'll be the faggot with two legs."
On the more idiosyncratic argument:
You ought to judge people not by a huge generalization, but how they perform individually. On average women are shorter, less strong, and slower than men. That doesn't say anything about the women who want to join the military. As long as they can perform more power to them. Obviously if they can't perform don't let them be in the military.
In terms of separate raxes and so forth, the military is a shitload of money ... as long as there are enough women they should get their own raxes.
Rape... that's something that could happen every day and signing up for the military they should be aware of the risks.
So, I believe yes that women should be sign up for the military.
This isn't really a topic about women being able to sign up for the military, as it is women being able to fill the front lines, there is a gigantic difference in the two.
In my opinion, if you are unable to meet the requirements to be in the front lines, you shouldn't be in them, regardless of gender. I don't think I'd be able to make the front lines, I'm not physically strong enough, and it would be a stupid decision to place me there when I can fulfill a job that I do meet the requirements and my stature isn't a problem.
This would be the same for a women that is unfit to work in the front lines. If there is such a short amount of recruitment, why would you then place anyone in a certain position over someone entirely superior? The goal would be to get the most out of your recruits and an unfit women in the front lines would not be achieving this.
Notice I keep saying unfit, because the women that can however perform the same as the men who also meet the requirements for the front lines, then by all means, they should be allowed there.
This issue should already be ended. I voted no because the Israeli military used women as part of their front line forces when fighting against one of the other middle east nations (I forget which and I'm too lazy to check) Their enemies took this as an insult and began attacking more aggressively and mercilessly, especially to the women. Also, as the op said, women can cause different negative effects on their allies morale, as well as distort their decision making. Due to these facts, I do not understand how there can be an argument. Why would you want to recruit women if they are physically and emotionally less suited for front line work than men, when they also cause a negative morale effect on your troops as well potentially aiding your enemies? This is only one matter as well, the expenses would be increased as already stated, And I'm assuming those of you saying "You have lots of money for military, just build them barracks" would probably be upset when you discovered they're building all of these things which would become necessities by increasing the taxes you pay.
On November 14 2009 04:38 TwoToneTerran wrote: Men have low hanging, superfluous genitalia that is an obvious weakpoint on the battlefield, and thus should not be used for battle.
ps: women, on average, have a smaller profile and are thus more suited for ranged combat that modern firearms forces.
pps: the female brain is better at multitasking which is the prime mental asset for squad leaders in any infantry unit.
ppps: Sexism is garbage.
You're points aren't valid because on average women still can't perform the basic physical tasks (compared to the way the average man can) to get to the point where a smaller profile would be worth accounting for.
Oh, and noticing the genetic differences between the two sexes isn't sexism.
Just sayin'.
The points are perfectly valid, unlike how "all men are better," seems to be vomiting in this thread. With these standards, any woman who can pass the military's standards would actually be more worthwhile as a soldier than a man who performs specifically as well, just because of 'genetic differences.'
Genetic differences are generalizations, non-specific, and a tool to justify broad sweeping sexism like "Boobs don't belong on the battlefield." (as if any woman who's qualified to be a frontline soldier would have boobs to speak of)
Also, it was tongue in cheek. I can say "No, women are better hth." but it's pointless because it's a broad, dumb generalization. Why? Because some women are over six feet and don't have smaller profiles, some women aren't good multitaskers. I've never really heard of a bona fide woman with low hanging genitalia but hell if there might not be one whose labia is engorged as hell.
Point is, citing genetic differences as law is for retards.
On November 14 2009 05:02 Sha[DoW] wrote: This issue should already be ended. I voted no because the Israeli military used women as part of their front line forces when fighting against one of the other middle east nations (I forget which and I'm too lazy to check) Their enemies took this as an insult and began attacking more aggressively and mercilessly, especially to the women. Also, as the op said, women can cause different negative effects on their allies morale, as well as distort their decision making. Due to these facts, I do not understand how there can be an argument. Why would you want to recruit women if they are physically and emotionally less suited for front line work than men, when they also cause a negative morale effect on your troops as well potentially aiding your enemies? This is only one matter as well, the expenses would be increased as already stated, And I'm assuming those of you saying "You have lots of money for military, just build them barracks" would probably be upset when you discovered they're building all of these things which would become necessities by increasing the taxes you pay.
If your troop's morale is so ridiculously fickle as to fall because they're working alongside women, then they probably aren't mentally capable of handling frontline war duty. Either that or their training is too insufficient to make that the least important thing in mind. Also, the "enemies will be more aggressive if they know women are in the opposing force's ranks!" argument, oh man, that is just precious. We have and will continue to have women in our military, plain and simple. Any culture who's aggressively opposed to this A) already hates our culture, B) "being more aggressive" is a catchall with no basis as they've already gone with incredibly effective and aggressive guerilla warfare, and C) is already insulted because we still use women in military anyhow. On top of that, when specifically talking about frontline duties, most combatants wouldn't be able to differentiate our uniform and bulky soldiers in battle, despite women's, on average, smaller frames.
And yeah, I can pay some fucking taxes to get rid of dumb ass inequalities that are just the last stronghold for maniacal patriarchy.
PS: the costs are uncited and almost entirely a cause of shoehorning of women into the military as a whole, not a specific branch with requirements. Women would cost no more medically for frontline soldiers as long as they're up to the performance standards of their comrades. Just like it doesn't cost any company more to use female labor that's as skilled and effective as male labor.
I mean, seriously, stop me if this sounds odd to some of you.
"Black people aren't capable of being in the army. They'll lower troop morale, which will cause for poor decision making. They aren't 'genetically superior' in intelligence/fitness because society has been based around stunting this potential of theirs thusfar and our white/patriarchal ways don't want to leave that comfort zone, and will continue to be hardheaded instead of accepting long-term beneficial change, both socially and militaristically WE HAVE STATISTICS THAT PROVE OTHERWISE IN GENERALIZATIONS THAT ARE INFALLIBLE. Their lack of talent that we previously mentioned would incur more costs, which would raise taxes! We'd have to build separate everythings!"
It's called war, like many of you say, stop thinking with societal dos and don'ts, or if you do, stop being sexists.
Voted no. If they want in they should follow the same standards as men. If it turns out less women make it through then so be it.
This "fake" push for equality leading to a double standard affects everything in the US, including selection of college sports, college admittance, the police force, firefighters, and the military. I'm sorry, but a double-standard is in no way proving that your gender is equal. I would not have an issue but these kinds of backwards policies affect a lot of our day to day lives.
On November 14 2009 06:33 TwoToneTerran wrote: If you think women should be allowed and be held to the same standard, why did you vote no?
I don't think they should be allowed at all. If they want to argue that they should, then they should follow the same standards. But ideally, no women in the police force, no women in firefighting, no women in the military. Sure you consider it a broad generalization, but how far off % wise do you think it is of the populace in those current positions? Less than 1%? I'd bet.
I voted no because I am not stupid enough to believe that women can do everything men can. Sure some women are stronger than some men. But chances are those men shouldn't be in the military either.
I'm glad you're completely certain that all men on the frontlines are more capable than every woman in the world.
Here's a hint: you're absolutely wrong and are completely buying in to societal dictations that military standards are just somehow far above a woman's ability to compete. The capability of excellent women is far more likely and it's completely disgusting of you to think we should adopt sexist policy to exclude those impressive percentile of women who meet the standards just...because it's a "men." thing.
On November 14 2009 06:40 TwoToneTerran wrote: I'm glad you're completely certain that all men on the frontlines are more capable than every woman in the world.
Here's a hint: you're absolutely wrong and are completely buying in to societal dictations that military standards are just somehow far above a woman's ability to compete.
I'm sorry that speaking out that men can perform certain jobs better than women somehow makes me a sexist. Rather than arguing the purely theoretical ("women COULD be just as good as men,") you need to be realistic and look at the actual situation as it is right now.
Speaking that men can perform certain jobs better than ALL men is sexist and incorrect.
You know, aside from things directly related to them, like male insemination and pregnancy and such.
It's been said before, take the top 100 capable people in a certain physical aspect and you'll most certainly get Men, but I assure you there is a vastly higher number than 100 for frontline soldiers, which is where the argument lies in allowing women.
I would like to know if any of the guys in the military could do that.....
If you think that women can't do the physical work of a man - on average, you may be right. But there are definitely some women who could do it.
As for the psychological aspect - yet again, on average, you may be right in saying that women can't handle it as well as men, but there are definitely some women who could handle it.
If they can compete physically and psychologically with men, why should they be shunned from the infantry?
Personally, I think that the effect on the others in the unit needs to be considered as well. Are the men in the unit going to be able to adjust to having women in the ranks? Are they going to treat them the same as the men in the unit? Are they going to be professional around the women? Are there any other foreseeable problems which may arise? If they are, they need to be looked at against the positives of having women in the infantry. If the positives outweigh the negatives, then it is obvious what the right choice is..... Unfortunately, I doubt that is the case. It's not that women couldn't do the same job, it's that they would inevitably affect the rest of the unit in a more negative way than the positives gained from them joining the rank.
EPT
